Recently, K1VR revealed:
> Take out any version of CT after 5.0 or so (i.e. CT 5, CT 6,
> CT 7, CT 8 . . . dunno if it's in CT 9 or not). Make your
> call K1VR. "Enter" a contest. WRITELOG. Look at the
> Summary Sheet (*.SUM). Note that a line that you've never
> seen before now appears, right next to the place where you
> edit in your equipment list.
> "Excuse: ________________________________________________"
Yes -- but if you want to see something REALLY incredible, take out
the TR Logging Program; do a similar exercise making your call K1EA...
(Warning: Just don't do it when children are present!)
73 de Walt, AC1O/4 "ac1o@delphi.com" "Multipliers Are"
>From Willy Umanets <uw9ar@chal.chel.su> Fri Sep 16 17:16:09 1994
From: Willy Umanets <uw9ar@chal.chel.su> (Willy Umanets)
Subject: WRTC thoughts.
Message-ID: <AA9JSUkSK2@chal.chel.su>
Hi all,
I have been reading WRTC stuff with great interest, and it is
about the time to make some of my thoughts in public.
First of all I was happy to know about second WRTC games to
finally happen in '95. My hat off to East coasters! I wish
you guys a lot of luck and success! We all will benefit!
Now a few comments/ideas.
It looks like one major issue has been missing in the overall
approach to WRTC'95, and that issue is the OBJECTIVE of such
event. So far I haven't seen the objective defined in any of the
official postings! Why go bother and make so much trouble to ourselves
(first of all I have you, the Committee guys on my mind) as to organize
such a complicated thing as WRTC games? I think it is so because we all
want to know who the best op is. Or do we want to know what the best
team is? Or do we want to know which nation has the top ops, which
could probably be defined by just summing up induvidual scores of
Nation's teammembers' scores? Or do we want to know which CQ/ITU zone
has the best ops? I, also thought after having been to WRTC'90, that another
part of the objective is to make radiosport (contesting) a part of recognized
Olympics' sports. So, in my opinion, WRTC should have a well thought and
defined objective, which hopefully won't change from event to evnt, which
will automatically give us the guidlines in the mists of all these tough
questions, selection criteria for an example, which will comply with
generall approach to Olympic sports as well.
I for one would like to know who is the best op, not team. I would also
like to know which nation scores the highest combined score. How to
determin the best op? Real SIMPLE. Let them operate under identical
CONDX in a live DX contest. I don't care about PED, I don't care about
CW copying tests (When I was 14 I was the junior champ of the Ural's
zone: UA9A, UA9W, UA9Q, UA9S, UA9F, UA4W, UA9C and I can tell you that
the cw copying/sending abilities, the way they are tested/judged in such
cw competitions have little to do with what makes the best CW DX contest
operator). I liked the list of valuable abilities of the operator given by
Dick, N6AA in his last posting. All these abilities can be tested in any major
contest, so IARU RADIOSPORT is certainly one of such and I have no problem
withthat choice.
As far as CW vs. SSB, I think its gotta be weighed equally. English is
THE DX contest language so far, thus mastering up the ability to talk it
adequately is a part of the game, period.
Use of packet. In many major areas it is a part of the today's contesting,
and I think it has to be available. Those that don't use it or just have
no access to it, like myself, must either learn how to use it or just go at
it without using it.
Stations available to competitors. Forget the WRTC'90 approach!
(Hey, Weast coasters, I mean the first WRTC was a GREAT thing, and supper
well done for the first try, but we must learn from experience, right?
I, for instance, still keep the tapes of our W7KJJ/WG operation with
3.5 hours of roaring s9 plus line noise on them). The only way to go is to
have out in the field identical stations. Such approach will also comply
well with Olympic sports criterias. So, dear WRTC'95 committee members, how
about 50 (fifty) IDENTICAL stations far enough from one another on some
vast field? Unaccomplishable, right? Yes, I guess so. I, now want to release
one idea proposed by Nick, UN4L (also UN7LT, ex-UL7LT). Say, we have JUST TEN
identical stations and 100 participants. All 100 are split by tens. In each
ten there are highly rated ops and low rated ops, thus avoidng situation,
where all potential winners are in one ten. With the start of the contest
let the first ten operate for 50 minutes. 10 minutes should be enough for the
second ten to accomodate themselves at the stn before they start their 50 mins.
In 10 hours all 100 competitors will go through first selection, and say in
11 hours the judge committee will define 30 out of 100 (3 out of each 10)
to continue the competition. The second round could be 2 hours long for each
ten, so in 7 more hrs we will have 9 best to finish the competition with
6 hours of the IARU left. Actually this approach is similar to Olympics,
where they have only 6 lanes for 50 or so runners available.
Participant selection. I suggest, that it has to be done by nations.
Each nation shold have a certain quota (numbers of participants). This
quota can be calculated on basis of Valuable entries in major contests
such as CQWWCW&PHONE, IARU, WAE. By valuable entry I mean first top 20
scores in each category over the past 10 yers in each of those contests.
The overall participation criteria is OK, but I guess counting just
scores of a high value puts us closer to answering the question which
country/nation have more GOOD ops not just the log subbmitters.
Hey, I hate to say, I gotta leave now. Still have cupla more comments...
Later...
ps. let the nations themselves chose its reps in such events guys, don't mess
arnd with a thing called nation's pride.
---
73, Willy, UA9BA
----------------------------------------------------------
JV "Challenger Ltd" phone : 351-260-0190
Internet : uw9ar@chal.chel.su fax : 351-237-1756
|